LambdaGeneration has word on Valve's software engineering efforts based on a video of a visit to Valve by some members of 4chan's /v/ (thanks Joao). This seems to offer the first concrete word on hints that they are working on a new game engine. Here's their transcript of the pertinent passage:

Fan: Is Valve potentially already working on a new engine?

Fan: Source 2? Could or… could not be?

Gabe Newell: We’ve been working on Valve’s new engine stuff for a while, we’re probably just [incomprehensible, subtitled as: "waiting for a game to roll it out with"]

Fan: Is it going to be more than just an extension to Source? Is it an entirely new engine?

I agree with this point specifically. I've been playing games for around 25 years - a lot of them; many of them major titles. I now find enemy AI in FPS games so utterly predictable there's little challenge, which is really frustrating. I beat Dishonored in around 10 hours, largely because I knew (even before I needed to use it) that a guard in an alerted state would "cool down" every time as long as I hid. That's exactly what happened. It really buggers up how much I'm drawn into a game when a guard finds a STACK of dead bodies, then 2 mins later sheaths his sword and strolls off on his merry way.

The knowledge of previous states of items seems like an absolute no-brainer to me. I'd find it really exciting. The first 2 Thief games scared the pants off me when I'd be hiding in the dark and a guard would spot a torch I'd blown out and get suspicious and start hunting me out. I really loved that and I'm not sure I've ever really experienced it properly again.

Ray Ban wrote on Nov 12, 2012, 16:37:You can't list games with good AI without including NOLF2 and F.E.A.R. They were impressive then and they are (sadly?) just as impressive today. I had such high hopes for the future (7 years ago) ...

Monolith fully integrated this system with the enemy's dialogue and game environments in an effort to create the illusion that the AI was smarter than it actually is. F.E.A.R. was widely lauded for the ability of its soldiers (both singly and in squads) to flank the player. In reality, the AI wasn't flanking at all -- it was moving from one cover area to another cover area. Because of the skill exhibited by the level designers, that next cover area was to the side of the player's location (or where the designers assumed the player would be), so when the AI moved to that location, it created a seamless illusion of the enemy flanking you.

"Good AI" is just AI that reacts appropriately and gives the illusion of intelligence. In NOLF, this was achieved by giving NPCs knowledge of the default states of doors and lights within a level, so if they noticed a door or light that wasn't in its default state, they'd investigate. It's a relatively simple thing but it makes a huge difference in how the player perceives the AI.

Stealth games still have ways to go in terms of AI, though. For one thing, AI needs to actually remember stuff. Every time it notices something suspicious, its suspicion level should be increased. So if you make a loud noise once, he'll investigate and then return to his idle state. Make another loud noise and he'll investigate again and return to his idle state. Make another noise and he'll decide that something is definitely wrong, permanently putting him into his alert state. I can't think of any stealth game that has actually done this. They always treat suspicious occurrences as isolated incidents when they should be keeping track of each one and reacting with escalating suspicion.

Ray Ban wrote on Nov 12, 2012, 16:37:You can't list games with good AI without including NOLF2 and F.E.A.R. They were impressive then and they are (sadly?) just as impressive today. I had such high hopes for the future (7 years ago) ...

Monolith fully integrated this system with the enemy's dialogue and game environments in an effort to create the illusion that the AI was smarter than it actually is. F.E.A.R. was widely lauded for the ability of its soldiers (both singly and in squads) to flank the player. In reality, the AI wasn't flanking at all -- it was moving from one cover area to another cover area. Because of the skill exhibited by the level designers, that next cover area was to the side of the player's location (or where the designers assumed the player would be), so when the AI moved to that location, it created a seamless illusion of the enemy flanking you.

Yep, I ran L4D2 on a Pentium 4 2.8Ghz and ATI x1600 for a little while and it was more than playable. Source seems to be the only modern engine that doesn't look like complete shit when you turn down the eye candy.

But it never looked great on the high end, either. Low poly counts, textures, lighting, animations (except facial) were never top-of-the-line in any Source title. At least Source made a big push for FSAA, though. It *felt* right when playing a Source game, anyways. No floaty movement, (usually) sensible physics, etc.

Beamer wrote on Nov 12, 2012, 13:40:How would it work, though? Fewer enemies? What would you spend most of your time doing?

I'm talking about a complete paradigm shift. We're basically playing whack-a-mole with generic, faceless enemies and we've become trained to expect that. What I'm talking about is creating real characters, genuinely intelligent and with unpredictable (not random) behaviour. I'm not suggesting simply adding more health, as that's what developers do now with boss fights. I'm talking about creating environments that are truly compelling and where you don't need enemies to feel engaged - much like Mirror's Edge and Portal managed. I'm talking about real adversaries, not bullet-sponges that appear on screen for all of twenty seconds (if that).

When I brought up Amnesia I was highlighting what can be done without actually having enemies on screen. What I'm suggesting is combining that sort of atmosphere (not necessarily scary - just compelling to the player) with enemies that you engage with on a different emotional level. So you can shoot them and they'll collapse to the floor but they don't necessarily die. An enemy that can drop their gun after being knocked over and they have to scramble across the floor or tactically retreat. And I'm not merely suggesting keeping them protected from taking damage. I'm talking about a different emotional connection where you have to really think about whether to kill them, as there are lots of none lethal options - ones where you can choose to work with them, for instance. Why are we always playing the hero?

The stuff I'm talking about will take generations of evolution and revolution and it's not something that will just miraculously appear on the market. But the games we're playing now are one dimensional, even those that try to offer more like Dishonored or Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The point is to give players something to do and make games more than shooting galleries that you walk about in.

descender wrote on Nov 12, 2012, 14:10:It runs on everything, I was able to play L4D2 on an athlon 2700+ and a ati 3850. Think about that for a second.

Yep, I ran L4D2 on a Pentium 4 2.8Ghz and ATI x1600 for a little while and it was more than playable. Source seems to be the only modern engine that doesn't look like complete shit when you turn down the eye candy.